Home' Trinidad and Tobago Guardian : January 28th 2016 Contents A8
Professionally Manag ed Mutual Funds
623-9091 ext. 2440 email@example.com
You too can be the successful investor!
Investments in the funds are not deposits and accordingly are not insured by the Deposit
Insurance Corporation, nor guaranteed by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, First
Citizens, any of its subsidiaries or any person or corporation.
The relevant prospectus should be read carefully before investing. Prospectuses are available
on our website, www.firstcitizenstt.com or upon request at First Citizens branches.
Jan 26, 2016
December, 2015 As at
FIXED INCOME FUND
As at Jan 26, 2016
INCOME & GROWTH FUND
6.1000 6.3277 6.4938
4.2303 4.4528 4.7645
8.5368 8.9861 9.6350
6.5219 6.8652 7.3705
****** 0.0535 0.0573
2.1335 2.3190 2.5068
* 2.5945 ******
for JANUARY 27TH, 2016
Guardian www.guardian.co.tt Thursday, January 28, 2016
A construction company has initiated a lawsuit
against the National Infrastructure Development
Company Ltd (NIDCO) over its rejected bid for the
proposed flyover at the Churchill-Roosevelt High-
Lutchmeesingh s Transport Contractors Ltd filed
the lawsuit in April last year, two months after it
was informed that its tender for the project would
not be considered by NIDCO.
The case came up for hearing in the Port-of-Spain
High Court on Tuesday, with presiding Judge Vasheist
Kokaram setting a timetable for determining a pre-
liminary issues in the case.
According to the company s statement of case, its
attorneys are claiming their client "suffered loss and
damage namely to the extent that it has been deprived
of the opportunity to protest and, in due course,
change the outcome of the tender evaluation procedure
contemplated by the Invitation to Tender (ITT).
The company is seeking damages for the wasted
expenditure incurred participating in the tender
process which it claims was rendered pointless by
the Nidco s breaches of contract for the lost oppor-
tunity to obtain a profit-making contract.
According to the company s statement of case,
Nidco issued the tender on October 28, 2014, in
which it set the conditions for the selection of the
contractor for the project, which is estimated to cost
over $400 million.
The two main considerations cited by NIDCO in
the selection process were costs for construction and
the capability of potential construction firms to com-
plete the mega-project.
After engaging in negotiations over several
meetings with NIDCO officials, the company
was informed on February 6 last year, that
it could no longer be part of the tendering
"The defendant (NIDCO) has, despite
repeated requests, refused to provide detailed
or sufficient (or indeed any) reasons for the
purported decision to reject or not proceed
with the tender," the company s lawyers
stated in their statement of case as they
also noted that NIDCO had promised to
justify their decisions to companies involved
in the tendering process.
The company is also claiming that if it
had been informed of NIDCO s reasons, it
could have amended the tender to be move
The tendering process was also marred
in controversy as there was a war of words
between former junior minister in the Min-
istry of Works and Infrastructure Stacy
Roopnarine and her former boss Dr Suruj
Rambachan over NIDCO s handling of the
Despite reports in June last year, that the
project was jointly awarded to two compa-
nies, among them Luchmeesingh s, no con-
tract has been agreed.
To succeed in their claim the company
must first prove that the ITT issued by
NIDCO was a binding contract which it
was bound. Kokaram will give his ruling on
this preliminary issue on June 3.
The company is being represented by
Simon Hughes, QC, Jessica Harragin and
Dereck Balliram while Kelvin Ramkisson is
Company sues Nidco over Curepe tender
Links Archive January 27th 2016 January 29th 2016 Navigation Previous Page Next Page